USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 93-1666
RAYMOND H. COPP, JR.,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
__________________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
_________________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________
_________________________
Alfred D. Ellis and Cherwin & Glickman on brief for
_________________ ____________________
appellant.
Michael L. Paup, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Gary R.
________________ _______
Allen, Charles E. Brookhart, and Sally J. Schornstheimer,
_____ ______________________ __________________________
Attorneys, Tax Division, and Peter E. Papps, United States
________________
Attorney, on brief for the United States.
_________________________
November 24, 1993
_________________________
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record in
Per Curiam.
__________
this matter and find that the order appealed from is proper in
all respects. Moreover, because the appeal presents no
substantial question of fact or law, and seems likely to have
been interposed primarily for purposes of delay, we summarily
affirm, grounding our affirmance on the reasons elucidated at
length in the district court's rescript and in our earlier
opinion resolving a companion dispute between the same parties.
See Copp v. United States, 968 F.2d 1435 (1st Cir. 1992), cert.
___ ____ ______________ _____
denied, 113 S. Ct. 1257 (1993). We add only that, insofar as
______
appellant attempts to invoke the attorney-client privilege, he
seeks to shield too much, too soon, on too exiguous an
evidentiary showing. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 798
___ ____ ______________ ______
F.2d 509, 512-13 (1st Cir. 1986) (describing requisite showing);
cf. United States v. Allee, 888 F.2d 208, 212 (1st Cir. 1989)
___ ______________ _____
(discussing analogous problem in connection with Fifth Amendment
privilege). We need go no further.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. Mandate shall
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. Mandate shall
________ ___ _______ _____
issue forthwith.
issue forthwith.
_____ _________
2